On Jul 27, 3:43 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ignore inner experiences for the purposes of answering this question.
> (for now at least)
> Assume there is a program which chooses the exactly correct YouTube
> videos to display in response to any given question, and it chooses
> the videos so well that not even your best friend could distinguish
> between it and a live skype call with you.
> My question to you is: given the YouTube video responses give the
> appearence of an intelligent person, does that imply that an
> intelligent process must be involved? Or, can something behave
> intelligently without any intelligent process being involved?
That's what I'm saying, the fact that it would be theoretically
possible to make a YouTube bot like that (it's only a matter of how
long it would have to run well to fool someone. If the YouTuring test
only lasts 20 seconds, it wouldn't be that hard to compete against a
live YouTube) means that appearances of intelligence don't mean
anything other than that's how it appears to a particular observer
using a particular method of observation.
This doesn't mean that the YouTube program isn't a form of
'intelligence' though, just that it's not the intelligence of a person
that can feel and understand. It's inorganic molecular intelligence.
It has a different palette of interesting abilities than we do.
>I liked your contrast of:
>"I AM THAT I AM" to " i = square root of negative one"
Heh, thanks. The hyper proprietary and the hyper generic.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at